Solicitor bailed out on me

[PriorityOne]

 

P1

I think i know what section 127(3) is and does, shoud do by now any way.

 

The burden of proof issue is as you say the opposite of that in the manchester hearing.

But the point i am trying to make is that the burcden of proof is not an abloute problem as it is in a criminal case .

As i said the judgement will be made on the ballance of probabilities,it is not up to the creditor to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt just that it was probable.

 

Peter

 

That is ridiculous.... sorry. It's a possibility, I grant you, if there's a cack Defence.... but to say it's the norm for sec. 127 (3) properly defended scenarios is misleading.

[Peterbard]

do you have the original cardholders agreement?

as such, i'm sure you will find, that as an additional cardholder

you are bound by that too.

you signed the addditional cardholder bit.

you had the card.

you used the card

i would think there are also statements that show your usage,.

do you know its last useage and when?

 

i seek PB's/anyone's confirmation here

but as far as i am aware, the original agreement would be enfrceable against you, as signitory against an additional cardholder.

 

i have experianced this before .

 

dx

Hi Found this in relation to liability from Lacours

"It is a well-established principle of agency law that a person who is entitled to pledge the credit of another acts as that other´s agent. It is the OFT´s view that an authorised second user on a credit card account is acting as agent of the principal cardholder, but that any claim under s.75 in relation to purchases made by the second card-user must be made by the principal cardholder (since the second user would not fall within the definition of ´debtor´ under the Act). There is, in the OFT´s view, a clear agency connection between the principal cardholder (the debtor) and the authorised user, and the former should be able to bring a s.75 claim in respect of transactions entered into by the latter".

Plenty more on the web to substantiate what I said earlier it of course depends on what ison the document the OP signed.

Peter

[Peterbard]

That is ridiculous.... sorry. It's a possibility, I grant you, if there's a cack Defence.... but to say it's the norm for sec. 127 (3) properly defended scenarios is misleading.

 

Sorry bot it is the way civil litigation works thats all

 

Peter

[PriorityOne]

Sorry bot it is the way civil litigation works thats all

 

Peter

 

If that's the case, what's the point of CCA law then?

Edited February 25, 2011 by PriorityOne
typo

[Peterbard]

If that's the case, then what's the point of CCA law then?

 

With respect

 

CCA is statute.

Civil law has always been decided on the ballance of porbabilities, as OJ Simpson.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi Lifted this from an MBAN agreement

 

With the MBNA Credit Card you can have up to three additional cardholders on your account at no extra charge. You are able to add one extra cardholder during the application process. Any additional card holder must reside at the same primary address, and have a relationship of close family member (such as: spouse, parent, sibling or domestic partner). The main card holder is responsible for any transactions made by any additional card

THe orriginal here

http://www.compareprepaid.co.uk/credit-card/mbna-points-visa-credit-card.html

[PriorityOne]

With respect

 

CCA is statute.

Civil law has always been decided on the ballance of porbabilities, as OJ Simpson.

 

Peter

 

So to surmise, you're saying.... that a balance of probabilities overrides statute law in cases that are properly defended. Is that what you're saying Peter?

 

Before you answer, please remember that Civil law (incl. the case you refer to) is a means of interpreting Statute law because Statute law is higher. Civil law can be overturned through the interpretation and application of Statute law, but Statute law cannot be overturned; it can only be amended.

 

OJ had a good Defence, if memory serves me right..... which is my point

Edited February 25, 2011 by PriorityOne

[coledog]

Has anybody bothered to advise Stupidboy to get some more information from MBNA about this? Possibly using a SAR request or something similar?

[PriorityOne]

 

Who was the original creditor? - MBNA

Who is now attempting to recover any alleged monies owed? - CABOT, assigned the debt

Have you sent an SAR to the original creditor? - no, just CCA requests, CABOT have had CPR requests as well

What other corrspondence/paperwork have you recieved (if any) in relation to this account? - too much to detail, to be honest. But no agreement and no T&C's. Just the card after sending the App form in. I assume that it came stuck to something but we haven't kept that - it wasn't an agreement or T&C's.

Was there any insurances taken out on the agreement? - No

 

Hope this helps a bit.

 

sb

 

Has anybody bothered to advise Stupidboy to get some more information from MBNA about this? Possibly using a SAR request or something similar?

 

It seems not..... and I'm not clear if he's tied into some kind of contract with the sols. that bailed on him (probably because they didn't know what they were doing) and then changed their mind (when they latched onto the DN idea). All they seem to be doing at the moment is messing things up.

[Peterbard]

So to surmise, you're saying.... that a balance of probabilities overrides statute law in cases that are properly defended. Is that what you're saying Peter?

 

Before you answer, please remember that Civil law (incl. the case you refer to) is a means of interpreting Statute law because Statute law is higher. Civil law can be overturned through the interpretation and application of Statute law, but Statute law cannot be overturned; it can only be amended.

 

OJ had a good Defence, if memory serves me right..... which is my point

 

Hi

 

There seems to be some confusion (with respect) in your understanding of the function of civil law and the various statutes that are enacted to regulate contracts.

I am not sure this is the place to instruct you, pardon me if that sounds patronising. If you want to start another thread on the function of consumer protection statute within civil law i will be glad to contribute.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

So to surmise, you're saying.... that a balance of probabilities overrides statute law in cases that are properly defended. Is that what you're saying Peter?

 

Before you answer, please remember that Civil law (incl. the case you refer to) is a means of interpreting Statute law because Statute law is higher. Civil law can be overturned through the interpretation and application of Statute law, but Statute law cannot be overturned; it can only be amended.

 

OJ had a good Defence, if memory serves me right..... which is my point

 

Hi

 

Just to clarify OJ was aquited in the criminal court but lost heavily in the civil one.

 

Because the requirements on the burden of proof where based on the ballance of probabilities n the latter case , this was the point i was trying to make.

This is a feature of Civil law and applies to all civil action regardles of the statute.

 

Peter

[dadofholly]

With respect

 

CCA is statute.

Civil law has always been decided on the ballance of porbabilities, as OJ Simpson.

 

Peter

 

Which goes against this common law right - one of the three parts of Magana Carta never to have been repealed. It says the LAW has to be upheld.

 

 

No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his free tenement or of his liberties or free customs, or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go against such a man or send against him save by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land. To no-one will we sell or deny of delay right or justice.

[stupidboy]

Yes i know.

Perhaps plan B then.

I cannot see your agrement, But i gather this is not the credit agrement but the second card holder application is that correct?

 

Sorry if this has been covered before but why are they chasing you for this if you are only the subsiduarry holder, the account liabilites will be down to the initial applicant.

Peter

 

I don't understand how this has happened - my wife and I have two completely separate accounts (they seem to have forgotten about her) but the form that I have posted is the only form I have ever seen or signed. There was no agreement and there is certainly no agreement seen or signed by me.

 

Weird, but this is what happened.

 

sb

[stupidboy]

Why can you not get out of this? Have you signed a binding contract or something?....

 

Signed a CFA...sb

[dx100uk]

can you do as in post 99 please so's we can see it clearly?

 

dx

[cerberusalert]

Hi

 

Just to clarify OJ was aquited in the criminal court but lost heavily in the civil one.

 

Because the requirements on the burden of proof where based on the ballance of probabilities n the latter case , this was the point i was trying to make.

This is a feature of Civil law and applies to all civil action regardles of the statute.

 

Peter

 

 

That's a bad analogy, particularly as OJ was prosecuted in the US.

[Peterbard]

I don't understand how this has happened - my wife and I have two completely separate accounts (they seem to have forgotten about her) but the form that I have posted is the only form I have ever seen or signed. There was no agreement and there is certainly no agreement seen or signed by me.

 

Weird, but this is what happened.

 

sb

 

Hi

So is theaction for default on your wifes account (which i presume you are the second card holder)or yours?

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

That's a bad analogy, particularly as OJ was prosecuted in the US.

 

It illustrates the ballance of probability reqiuirment in cimmon law in civil cases the requirement is the same here in fact they copied the idea from us.

 

Peter

[stupidboy]

MBNA Additional card.pdf

can you post up what you did inpost 42ish using this method please:

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets

 

Hi,

- there are none, ot least, none that I am aware of. There are T&C's in stuff they have sent me and the solicitors but there is no "agreement" other than the attached pdf.

 

Why pdf, by the way?

 

sb

[Peterbard]

Which goes against this common law right - one of the three parts of Magana Carta never to have been repealed. It says the LAW has to be upheld.

 

 

No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his free tenement or of his liberties or free customs, or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go against such a man or send against him save by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land. To no-one will we sell or deny of delay right or justice.

 

Ballance of probability judgements in civil casa is common law

 

Peter

[stupidboy]

Hi Lifted this from an MBAN agreement

 

With the MBNA Credit Card you can have up to three additional cardholders on your account at no extra charge. You are able to add one extra cardholder during the application process. Any additional card holder must reside at the same primary address, and have a relationship of close family member (such as: spouse, parent, sibling or domestic partner). The main card holder is responsible for any transactions made by any additional card

 

THe orriginal here

 

http://www.compareprepaid.co.uk/credit-card/mbna-points-visa-credit-card.html

 

Hi PB,

If I had an agreement, or they argue that I had one (even though they can't produce it) I could get this case stuck out on the basis that I am not responsible for my use of the card............................

 

then I get divorced :smile:

 

sb

[Peterbard]

That's a bad analogy, particularly as OJ was prosecuted in the US.

 

Hi

OK

Are you saying that civil cases are not decided on the ballence of probabilities? Do i really have to produce documentarry evidence to confirm this really quite funemental aspect of civil litigation.

 

Peter

[dx100uk]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25337[/ATTACH]

 

Hi,

- there are none, ot least, none that I am aware of. There are T&C's in stuff they have sent me and the solicitors but there is no "agreement" other than the attached pdf.

 

Why pdf, by the way?

 

sb

 

can you zoom on that picture if you post it and click it

 

do as i say then it makes it zoomable

 

dx

[dx100uk]

thats better

 

 

what bits have your writing in and is it just your sig etc?

 

dx

[cerberusalert]

Hi

OK

Are you saying that civil cases are not decided on the ballence of probabilities? Do i really have to produce documentarry evidence to confirm this really quite funemental aspect of civil litigation.

 

Peter

No I'm saying if anyone is going to use an example it should be one from the UK not one from over the pond.